As a conservative concerned with stabilizing families to rely less on government aid, I have been convinced: I’ve been worrying about the wrong thing. Stopping same-sex marriages does nothing to support families battered by economic adversity. Instead, it excludes and punishes people who seek only to live as conservatives would urge them to live. Treating same-sex partnerships differently from husband-wife marriages only serves to divide and antagonize those who ought to be working together.

Like many signatories of the amicus brief, my thinking has been influenced by the fine example of the many committed, devoted same-sex couples I know. At least as much, however, I have also been swayed by an intensifying awareness of the harm culture-war politics has done to my party. Culture-war politics have isolated the GOP from the America of the present and future, fastening it to politics of nostalgia for a (mis)remembered past. Culture-war politics have substituted for relevant cultural policies aimed at encouraging the raising of children within married families. Worst of all, culture-war politics has taught the GOP to talk to America as if the nation were split into hostile halves, as if more separates Americans than unites them.

Translation: ” All those years that you told me this, in these exact words and I was a stubborn ass. But thanks to the embarrassing defeat that my party was handed I realize that if I hold any hope to even be photographed with those in power, I must change my tune and fast. ”

He changed his tuna faster than Phillip Glass changes tonalities in the first page of any of his operas.

You know, I’m torn between welcoming change of mind and heart and wanting to close the door to those who chose the “safe time” to show up to the party, seeking the same credit as those who chose to stick around from the beginning.

I have a buddy who is a die-hard New England Conservative. He believes conservative ideology I find ridiculous, and he believes those things passionately – particularly the important of smaller government. And he’s been pro-gay-marriage since back when it was 1-in-5 agreeing with him, and, in his circle, more like 1-in-20. Better than that, he’s been an ambassador to those in his circles who don’t know gay people. He’s been a loyal friend to me and an ally to gays – not despite his beliefs, but because he discovered that when the question came, gay rights comported with them.

David Frum doesn’t deserve to be in the same room as this guy. Hell, I’ll say it. Screw you, Frum. Screw your friends too. We know who our friends our. No canapes for you. This kiki is closed (and marvelous).

I think the Republicans saw they lost the vote of women and younger voters and those groups are much more supportive of marriage equality, particularly the younger voters are a concern. So people like Frum want to encourage Republicans to change their stance on marriage so they can have a hope of getting a bigger slice of the youth vote and power in the future.

Certainly for me it seems a little too coincidental that all these changes of heart come a few months after the Republicans lose the election for it to be coincidental.

Timothy-
Give us a freaking break. Really, “What do they have to gain from this…?”

Frum even goes so far as to tell us that the MAIN reason he changed positions is the damage it has now done to the GOP. He didn’t change his mind when the issue HELPED the GOP, only when it started doing damage. His main concern is in his own words, harmful to his party so they have to change. Not, I changed my views for real, honest reasons, but I changed my views because this hurts the GOP.

FRUM: At least as much, however, I have also been swayed by an intensifying awareness of the harm culture-war politics has done to my party. Culture-war politics have isolated the GOP from the America of the present and future, fastening it to politics of nostalgia for a (mis)remembered past. Culture-war politics have substituted for relevant cultural policies aimed at encouraging the raising of children within married families. Worst of all, culture-war politics has taught the GOP to talk to America as if the nation were split into hostile halves, as if more separates Americans than unites them.

I won’t slap him for his new stance, but I also won’t get up and dance around the house because anti0gay bigots are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I’ll take the support, but I won’t accept that it’s for honestly held beliefs. Neither he, nor Meg Whitman will sway my view on them for now supportting our rights. They rode this animal as long as it helped them win elections, now that it makes them LOOSE elections, they changed their minds…right, that’s something we are supposed to celebrate.

For me, as welcomed as the support is, it seems selve serving the change of hearts. Will I take the support? OF COURSE! Will I celebrate that a heart has been changed? How so?

In his own words, as I said before and many have said more eloquently: the evidence was there in front of him and he chose to go the opposite way because it allowed him to gain power; now that it no longer is a winning combination we do not get an “I was wrong all along, I have had a chance to meet with gay people and are convinced that what we did hurt them.” What do we get? “This thing stinks because it is a loosing combination. If we want to retain or gain power we need to change our stance and fast, otherwise we will be relegated to irrelevancy.”

In summary: what I get is “Gay people are still a pawn. The years ago was to gain and retain power, now it is regain it.” Main 2 themes? Gays and power: how do we use gays to gain or retain power.

Where is the principle on that? Where is the admission of the damage done? Where is the apology for using the electorate and elections to hurt gay tax payers? Where is the “we screwed you, and your lives, and your families, and your livelihoods and we are sorry for doing it in such a stubborn, insulting, self serving and self entitled way.”?

I’m going to lay it all out here – it’s long, but since you intend to blog about us, I think it’s appropriate to have a full-throated defense of my position. I’ll start at the beginning. Follow me here.

I think most people honestly don’t have an opinion about gay marriage – certainly not a strongly felt opinion. What they do have a strongly felt opinion about, however is fitting in and/or succeeding in their careers.

The conservative movement in America has been lurching into to the fringes of the right (this is well-documented, there are even infographics). Anti-gay sentiment has been an absolute litmus test for membership – failure to be an anti-gay bobblehead could kill a career early, or end a highly successful one fast (Bill Weld anyone?). Which would have been fine if people had left the issue alone – but as the issue gained prominence, everyone was called to put their position in black and white.

There’s a reason putting someone on the record done by both sides – once stated concretely, it’s harder to backtrack: in or out.

I think a lot of people who either didn’t care or may even have expressed mild support personally sold us down the river for their own personal gain. They did it to curry favor within their party, to get jobs, to get elected, or to stay elected. They never expressed a cogent explanation for their feelings – it was enough to say “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman”, as though our rights and responsibilities as citizens is predicated on beliefs, not the doctrine of law or a Constitution – that’s how cheaply our rights were sold.

And they had powerful object lessons: Bill Weld was sandbagged and driven from politics by Jesse Helms solely because of his pro-gay policies as MA governor.

Now, of course, the tide is turning. We could get into a long discussion about why that is, but we’ll forgo that here. Folks who held anti-gay views are no longer in the mainstream. Their strategy of signing on to a group-think has put them on an increasingly small boat with increasingly crazy people – and it’s taking on water faster.

Being anti-marriage is now a job liability. It’s now a candidate liability. It’s a lot like being pro-segregation in the 70’s. It’s not cool. Beyond the naked self-interest at work here such as those have their eyes on winning office (Whitman), or columnists for whom relevancy is paramount (Frum), there are other issues like shame (Mehlman) over past anti-gay advocacy.

How many pro-segregationists were given column space in Time Magazine or Newsweek in the 70’s and 80’s? David Frum is 52 – the next 13 years should be his best and most profitable. But no one will bring on board someone who’s perceived as a retrograde luddite with unpopular, inflammatory, biased views that are no longer in step with the very eyeballs you need to sell advertising dollars.

What does Frum have to gain? He’s saving his neck.

What does Whitman have to gain? If she ever wants to be considered for office in CA – especially if she runs against Gavin Newsome, which is a near certainty, she needs to do fast damage control here.

What does Mehlman have to gain? He’s trying to save his soul.

Why should these people be called bigots? Never said they should be. But they should be called what they are: selfish, cowards, opportunistic, lacking in conviction, incapable of fashioning policy points out of logical extensions of their beliefs (which leads us to question everything else they claim they believe in). And Uncle Tom (in Mehlman’s case).

They deserve to be held accountable for what they said and what they did it was popular, and they shouldn’t get a free pass just because they are possibly getting in front of a court decision by a few months.

Because, let’s be honest – if they and their friends had done then what they are doing belatedly, we wouldn’t have to seek redress from the courts at all. They did this to us – by shaping the conservative side of public discourse – by setting the terms of debate – by establishing what was acceptable to hold as an opinion, or what was okay to say in public – by concealing who they were (in Mehlman’s case) – these are the very leaders of public discourse, of business, and of policy who did this to us.

And now we should just forgive and forget? Remind me not to trust your friends.

Let me be clear – with respect to “doing this to us” and forcing us to seek redress from the courts, I’m speaking in terms of Prop 8, and of having our rights granted, but then stripped from us through plebiscite.

Having lived here in CA, I had to live with the hideous advertising campaigns that spoke of gays as being threats to children… while politicians and shapers of conservative public thought said nothing or cheered them on.

Whitman is from California. She saw those disgraceful ads. She saw the shockingly bigoted campaign that was waged. And she said she’d stand behind the defense of that line of thinking if elected to office.

The political campaign behind Prop 8 was nothing if not the ideological step child of Mehlman’s work at the national level.

Frum has a little more wiggle room – he voiced an alternative voice as “long” ago as 2010, and has paid some measure of professional price for it. My question is – when I know arch-conservative small-government Republicans who have held pro-marriage views since 1995, what took him so long? A lot to ask for? You bet. Comes with the territory of being considered a leading public thinker – you’re supposed to… think.

What makes them bigots? I don’t know, I’m not a bigot so I don’t know why people are, I just know when they are. Whitman and her response to the Prop 8 case is what makes her actions bigoted. Her 100 percent reversal and know cloaking herself in “rights” to help her future is hardly convincing. Same goes with Frum and I think Andrew opined quite well about why in those regards.

I also echo his sentiments about conservative apologist first. In that sense I can see why you defend those who once opposed you with every ounce of their positions. Now acting as if they are fine upstanding people making a change because they saw the light, yeah, more like the writing on the wall. Keep apologizing for them. It let’s us know where you REALLY stand.

So the immature and bitter people here can’t accept a change of heart from anyone. Perhaps Meg Whitman should dress in a sack cloth and beat herself as she walks down Castro Street. Frum can maybe commit suicide on national television. Would that satisfy you? Grow up and welcome to the real world, please.

Another thing: getting marriage in CA will have no real practical benefits until DOMA is repealed. State law currently treats married and same sex couples (registered domestic partners) essentially the same.

They were more than “against” same sex marriage. They actively tried to get it into the Constitution of the USA, hardly the same as Oabma or Clinton, and quite the strawman argument I must add.

And, if you read what people have said, they are glad for the support, but not fooled by the change in attitude. Yes, I am and will be for some time, suspicious of those who tried to enshrine discrimiation in the US Constitution. One hardly goes from that to full throated support without a motive of sorts. And their motive is only to be on the right side of history so they can continue to compete politically.

Most of the comments with a negative view were because Timothy couldn’t seem to grasp why people had a negative view of these people (Frum specificlly) and wanted an explanation. Don’t try to turn that conversation into the one you seem to be having with yourself.

There is a corollary to saying that that they are only supporting marriage equality to gain more votes. It also means that many of them only opposed it to gain votes. Specifically to gain favor with the religious right. That’s not exactly a secret, but it makes them all the more despicable.

I’m scratching my head from the left. I seriously, SERIOUSLY don’t understand this strange dynamic. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not about to become a Whitman fan (for example). I can still oppose some/most/all of her other positions, just as I don’t, politically, have much in common with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) despite her having been pro-gay from the very beginning, having been a founding member of the House LGBT caucus.

But we’ve got all kinds of people that we need to change minds. From next door neighbors, to co-workers, to community leaders, to preachers, to sports figures, to governors, congresspersons, to supreme court justices to — well, until two years ago I would have said the President of the United States.

And when they do change their mind — for whatever reason, for whatever motivation, for whatever pure or cynical calculations, for whatever who-gives-a-flying-fuck why — we all win. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US. Because they are now no longer fighting agaisnt us.

Yes, they did before. Ferociously. And we all have a right to resent their past actions. It’s up to you as to whether you want to forgive them or not. It’s up to you whether you want to vote for them or not. (I probably wont.)

But it seems that what some people on this list are doing is asking for the impossible. These people cannot go back in time to change those past actions. Instead, they are doing the next best thing. They have halted those harmful actions — isn’t that what we wanted? — and they have pledged to support us — isn’t that also what we wanted?

The alternative to that is, instead, that nobody changes their mind, whether they are neighbors, co-workers, community leaders, preachers, sports figures, governors, congresspersons, supreme court justices, or presidents of the United States. And all of them are fighting against us. Which is where we were BEFORE this movement started. And we would sill be where we were then, and not where we are today headed to where we’re going tomorrow.

It seems that some people would rather we go back to the way they were. That way they could safely nurse their resentments in peace. Like I said. there are some people around here who just can’t take yes for an answer.

By the way, I believe that my argument above is consistent with what I wrote when the Log Cabin Republicans went gunning for Chuck Hagel. Ya’ll are acting like a bunch of late-model Log Cabinners. Shame on you.

Well if I asked that question then you would have given an honest answer. I didn’t.

What I actually asked is “what is the basis for seeing Frum (or Whitman) as a bigot?”

I know that question is not as convenient. But it’s the one I asked.

Because, in order to understand your anger at bigots, I have to know what you mean.

Is it that in 2009 they didn’t support equality? Are all people who didn’t support equality in 2009 bigots who we must consider to be cynical when they change their view? Or is that true only of some, and how do you distinguish?

Or did Whitman and from do something else about which I am ignorant?

Because if you have a good reason, then I should give it consideration. But if your reason is nothing bother than party registration, then I can treat your opinions as being based on that criterion.

JIm, you wrote; “And we all have a right to resent their past actions. Itâ€™s up to you as to whether you want to forgive them or not. Itâ€™s up to you whether you want to vote for them or not.”

This hits the nail on the head. I resent their past actions, but I’m not going to live there. I do forgive them, but i won’t forget about not doing the right thing when they KNEW it was the right thing.

I suspect Frum didn’t meet all of those fine gay couples just in the last year. (I hope they’re not imaginary friends like Kirk camerons imaginary gay friends). He just didn’t consider it very important.

The key word here for me is FORGIVE. Absolutely. But only an idiot would also forget, at least for the time being. Schwarzenegger said he was against prop. 8, but did nothing against it at all, when his help would have been of immeasurable use.

I’m reminded of my mother here. I forgave her a long time ago for all of the crap she pulled, all the damage she did. (My brother NEVER did, and it wrecked his life. But that’s another story). But I would have been very foolish indeed to let down my guard around her. The few times I did, i learned quickly that it wasn’t wise.

That’s exactly how I feel about Republicans, even those making this belated shift. I’m happy to welcome them onto the right side of history. I’m glad for their support. But it’s going to take a long time before I’ll actually trust them.

And one of the reasons for that is the one I’ve already stated: I won’t forget about not doing the right thing when they KNEW it was the right thing.

Mark, Obama came out in favour of gay marriage before the November election when many still thought it would cost him votes and perhaps even the election. He took a chance on it backfiring that all these Republicans weren’t willing to do. If he had been as insincere as these Repulicans he’d have waited until after the election to say he was in favour of marriage equality.

Jim, “conservative apologist” is a characterization – whether you believe it’s negative is up to you. Let’s say that between postings, comments, and private emails on a broad array of issues, Tim’s line of argument has become as predictable as cable news commentary – I find it slanted and sometimes contorted – overly anchored around a need to further conservative viewpoints at the expense of reason. That’s only a problem if it’s not what is intended. Every good outlet needs a provocateur.

As to engaging with gay-marriage converts, I’m making distinctions between the Whitmans / Mehlman’s and the neighbors.

There’s an element of opportunism here that is highly distasteful on the part of those who suddenly “see the light” at a moment when it will do little to aid our cause, but still do much to repair their reputations with those who are inattentive or gullible. They want something for nothing when their peers with integrity paid in years past with their jobs, their office, and their appointments.

And there’s a flabbergasting credulity on the part of many in the gay and/or progressive community who seem happy to see any friendly face, even if it’s the person who was knifing you – publicly so their clubmates could watch and approve – a mere 5 minutes ago. You shouldn’t be throwing kisses at someone who lacks character and integrity.

No, Mark, I don’t expect anyone to commit seppuku on national television.

Here’s what I do expect: Be honest. In most cases, that means: admit that it was about trying to succeed in the business of politics, and especially as a conservative, which put you in a position of having to publicly contradict your own beliefs, or adopt positions you didn’t believe in, didn’t care about, or hadn’t really considered. And that this is why it’s so easy to have such a carefully timed conversion now that the public opinion coast is clear.

Bill Clinton screwed us, and he screwed appointees like Bill Weld, but he’s at least done some of these things. Obama’s line about an “evolving position” doesn’t pass the straight-face test, but at least he’s taken risks, and taken action on our behalf. Now he just needs to stop this “evolution” pablum that the press eats with a spoon.

Until capable of taking ownership for past behavior, then here’s what these folks *can* do: Quit elbowing each other to get their names in the history books with a last minute group brief to the Supreme Court so they will look great in 50 years. Stop flirting with news media, as though an 11th hour conversion is some mark of achievement – and a reason they should run in 2016. Quit trying to wear the mantle of integrity won by those who took tough positions with integrity 2, 5, 10 years ago (without being forced out of the closet by Bill Maher), and paid a steep price for it. It’s unseemly.

And if that’s too much to ask, then by all means, stay out of the public eye.

As someone raised Catholic, I’m all about forgiveness – but as we all know, first one must admit what they did. We have yet to see that happen.

As to those who don’t see what Whitman did that was wrong, I think we forget what “leaders” are.

In the 1960’s key leaders of the Republican party heard the venom coming from right-wing groups like the John Birch society and said, publicly, “that’s not acceptable”. It transformed the party, and made clear that some ideologies were too extreme for mainstream Conservative politics.

In that context, Meg Whitman did two things:

1) she remained silent while one of the ugliest public campaigns I’ve seen in my lifetime was waged on the public airwaves: Prop 8 in California, which branded gays as a menace to children and worse. As a high-profile business leader in California, and as someone who aspired to public office, she nonetheless remained silent; if she found such tactics repellant, she had an obligation to speak out. Otherwise, as a leader in the party furthering these arguments, her silence rightly taken as tacit approval.

2) as candidate, after this ugliness, she still remained silent on the substance of the prop 8 campaign during her run. moreover, she distinguished herself from her democrat opponent by taking the pro-Prop 8 stance. she made defending it in court part of her campaign – in so doing, she allied herself with that cause. this was a second and third opportunity to distance herself from the ugliness of the ideas underlying that campaign. despite having locked up her party’s nomination and having no attacker from the right, she made a decision to embrace those ideas for political gain.

Now she’d like us to believe that she’s all better. Look! She signed a brief to the Supreme Court and she even tweeted about it on LinkedIn! I like a politician that really puts in the effort.

At the time, see, she felt it was wrong to overturn the will of the people. In the shadow of demographic data from the 2012 elections Having pored thoroughly over the court proceedings, she feels it’s just nifty to overturn the will of the people.

I’m not buying it, and neither should you. Either she has a poorly formed understanding of civil rights, American jurisprudence, and public policy, or she’s a self-serving political hack who changes with the wind.

Maybe, she’s figured out just what direction the will of the people is headed in, and that she’s either going up against Jerry Brown in 2014, or worse for her on this issue, maybe Gavin Newsome for governor or senate shortly thereafter.

I’m sorry if I’m strict. I just expect people who put themselves forward as leaders to have principles and understand the basics of things like civil rights and the role of constitutions in government. Here’s the thing: she’s a sharp cookie – i think she does, i just don’t think she saw it as a trajectory to victory, and she was happy to get there on our backs.

Andrew said “Thereâ€™s an element of opportunism here that is highly distasteful on the part of those who suddenly â€œsee the lightâ€ at a moment when it will do little to aid our cause”.

Now this is where I think you go too far. Having Republicans convert is very helpful and I think this neverending whipping of people who’ve joined are side is harming our cause. You’re only discouraging more Republicans from making this conversion. We need everyone on our side that we can get and this constant beatdown of people who’ve joined us is counterproductive.

You don’t have to praise these people, but at least for the sake of the cause feign indifference.

If Meg Whitman didn’t make defending Prop 8 part of her campaign, then Please, explain then why we read this back in 2010 during California Gubenatorial race (or is the quote just made up and ascribed to her?):

”
Whitman’s first definitive statements on how she would handle the issue as governor came hours before she spoke at the opening of the three-day state GOP convention in San Diego, where she is facing open hostility from conservatives over her positions on illegal immigration and climate change.

“I think the governor of California and the attorney general today have to defend the Constitution and have to enable the judicial process to go along … and an appeal to go through,” Whitman said. “So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court.”

Becausesurely, her own words don’t mean she was against Gays marrying, just that it needed to be defended by the Governor, right. I live in california and I recall this very well, thank you very much, and it WAS an issue during that campaign. And if Meg Whitman didn’t make it part of her campaign, why are the articles she wrote about “Why I changed my mind” are to be believed she even admits that she was a supporter of Prop 8 in her own campaign. This very fact, that Whitman herself admits she was pro-8 and used it as part of her campaign, is proof that you are an apologist. You make arguments that even the people involved don’t make. I think Whitman’s own words are better than your fantasies. She supported it, made fighting the legal battle part of her campaign rhetoric, and now you say she didn’t even though she says she did.

Priya, it depends. There’s little Ken Mehlman can do that would mollify me. There are others who come by change honestly – we’ve all seen the YouTube videos. And there are others who make a calculation.

I guess it comes down to three questions… how much of your house is built on my back, and how much did you pay for your conversion, and what are you getting out of it now.

I’m envisioning a Whitman v. Newsome debate where Whitman tries to claim an equal mantle and the news media lets it go… because after all, she signed that brief to the Supreme Court. That would bug the crap out of me.

As to Timothy – now I’m pissed. Either you’re lying, or you’re not a very good researcher. Read her own tweet dated 26 February 2013 – 3 days ago:

“As a candidate for governor three years ago, I supported Proposition 8.”

So, shall we now talk about who’s manipulating, and who’s lying? Your comment goes beyond questioning the statement to make a counter-statement that is not only unsupported, it’s outrageous. You should apologize.

Interesting that most of the signatories are Republicans who operate on the national level or in blue or purple states. That increases the likelihood that they are motivated by the change in the polls. (It would take courage for a Republican politician from a Southern state to endorse marriage equality.) I think they are mostly motivated by their self-interest, just as the cave by a large minority of Republicans on the inclusive Violence Against Women Act.

But more interesting to me than their motives is the way the brief itself is tailored to conservative ideals and even cites cases that liberals loathe but conservatives adore like the second amendment case that struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and Citizens United. On the one hand, the brief is designed to appeal to conservative justices, but it also makes a very good case for why conservatives should support same-sex marriage. SSM is, after all, both a liberal and conservative policy.

In short, I do not doubt for a minute that many of them are craven politicians who know that in blue and purple states and on the national scene same-sex marriage enjoys majority support and a failure to embrace it will bite them in the rear. However, the real value of the brief is that it makes a very strong conservative case for same-sex marriage, justifying it in terms of personal liberty, individual responsibility, and freedom from government inerference. This conservative case is very different from the progressive case that stresses equal protection and freedom from discrimination that is made by Olson and Boies and the gay rights organizations.

I read the linkdn piece, what’s funny is that she has another ost up there on leadership, and what it means to “Lead”, she says:

“This last point isnâ€™t going to break new ground, but itâ€™s the most important: it is incumbent on every single leader at a company to actually lead. Employees read body language and care about leadership. That holds true for customers. Simply put, you donâ€™t stand a chance if you donâ€™t have the will to win.”

Funny how leading is different in business than in politics. In Politics it’s considered “leading” if you change your mind once the writing is on the wall. But in business, you have to “actually lead”.

And a note to clarify my view on this. I am glad they have changed their views, as I stated in my first post, but I am not willing to throw them a parade now that they have changed. It’s going to take more than an amicus brief to undo all the damage these people have done. This does NOT mitigate it at all. But I gladly take the support, and await the actions that are required. It takes more than a signature. So far every individual who was agianst Marriage Equality on this amicus brief, has done tremendous damage to our community, that requires more than a signature to change.

I was going to post the same quotation from Whitman but then I decided to see if you and/or Andrew would reply since it was your conversation :) I found the exact same article from the Chronicle that you did.

A mere three days ago, Timothy posted the exact same quotation (although really it was Jim, as Timothy linked to his 2010 article. Still, that quote shares the front page of btb at this very moment in an article penned by Mr. Kincaid).

But I think I see Timothy’s point. How dare we assume that when a candidate for governor is quoted – two months before an election – at her party’s convention – taking a position on an issue – that she’s making a statement on what her position would be as governor. Much better to believe that “Those who sought to manipulate us and â€˜give the gay voteâ€™ to their candidate” were behind our interpretation of the words that were reported coming out of her mouth.

Shame on me and shame on you, Robert, for having the audacity to wonder as to whether a political candidate speaking during campaign season – at her party’s convention (!) – is making a policy statement.

And I guess shame on Andrew, too, since the conspiracy about giving the gay vote was in response to him!

I think that Robert and Andrew’s argument (which I agree with) is that “change” for the sake of political expediency isn’t really change, just opportunism. In other words, these people are not to be trusted.

That the comments made about “shame” or “you were lied to” did not go unchallenged is enough for me. I was here in California when Whitman ran. I was impacted directly by her campaign. I was lucky to be able to vote against her. During that time, I heard her speak. From her mouth. With my ears. I’m not stupid, brain-damaged, hearing-impaired, nor do I have a problem with the English language. I wasn’t lied to. I was fucking here watching it live on TV.

Having multiple sources of printed reference, however, is helpful.

Palmer, can I hire you as translator? In case it’s not manifestly clear, I need one.

If you don’t know the difference between answering a question one time and making something part of one’s campaign, then I think there’s no further explanation I can give you.

But I do know that you heard it during the campaign. I did too. Because while Meg never spoke of it again, the “non-partisan” gay organizations sent me emails about how Meg wanted to enforce Prop 8 and reverse it in the courts.

Apparently you were their target audience, ready – eager, even – to believe that Meg was campaigning on Proposition 8, an amendment that had passed two years prior. You still believe it today

Palmer said I think that Robert and Andrewâ€™s argument (which I agree with) is that â€œchangeâ€ for the sake of political expediency isnâ€™t really change, just opportunism. In other words, these people are not to be trusted.

Andrew, I fully agree with what Palmer said as well, I’m just not going to complain endlessly about these Republicans regardless of what motivated their change in position and I think that’s what benefits our side the most.

What I see is a woman who is less supportive than Jerry Brown, but not an ardent foe of gay equality. She has pandered to the right in her statement on the appeal, but has not made anti-gay positions a part of her campaign. She was the most preferable of those running in the Republican primary, but falls short of seeing gay people as fully equal in society. She is not (as some partisan hacks have taken to calling her) homophobic, but her views are not as evolved as they should be and she is not an ally of our community.

Tim, you’re flat wrong, but I’ll eschew the accusation that you’re a liar, because that’s irresponsible (try that sometime).

Prop 8 wasn’t an esoteric opinion question – it was a live grenade in the Governor’s race.

Brown made it clear he would not defend Prop 8 in court, as did Harris (AG). At that time, it was not clear that the courts would grant standing to the proponents of Prop 8, and it was believed that this alone could have killed the appeals process.

But there’s more… she sent her minions out during the campaign to say this:

Randi: I’m a little confused about one issue: Regarding Whitman’s stance on Proposition 8 and gay marriage. She is against gay marriage but supports civil unions. Can you speak on that?

Mitch: I can help you on that one. Yes, she voted for Proposition 8, and to her that was a matter of her faith and her personal convictions. She does believe the term “marriage” should belong to the union of a man and a woman. But that said, she is absolutely a strong supporter of civil unions and it’s evident by her leadership at eBay. It was tremendously inclusive in that regard. The one other distinction that she made is that the folks who were legally married when the law was in California, those folks should stay married.

Where Mitch is Mitch Zak, spokesman for the Whitman campaign, and Randi is the interviewer, blogger Randi Bernfeld.

This is exactly why I compared you to cable news, Timothy. You don’t do your homework. You try to label as “liars” those who accurately read the signals her campaign was sending to reassure conservatives. As a contributor of this site, you level serious accusations without foundation to further a political ideology and give cover to conservatives. That’s just irresponsible.

We’re talking about running with on one side of the argument when it’s politically expedient, and then, as publicly as possible, changing sides to get on the right side of the issue, while making some waffly comment about personal transformation.

And here’s the thing – she’s predicating her ‘personal transformation’ on having read the court case from 2010 – the same one she was vowing to challenge in court in 2010. There’s no logic to it, it doesn’t even hold together.

If you’re comparing Whitman against whacky ministers in the deep south those who demonize gays, then I guess Meg is less bad. Even though she had nothing to say during the campaign in which gays were labeled as hazards to children and worse. We’ve already covered this ground. Leaders have an obligation to call out unacceptable language and arguments in political discourse.

I’m not beatting anyone up over anything. Timothy posted an article about WHY Frum now says he supports equality. First Timothy presented us the classsic strawman question:

Iâ€™m a bit confused. Is the criticism that he was stubborn and didnâ€™t change, or that he changed too quickly?

Strawman because no one holds either of those views and there is more than option a and option b, like option c, political expediency in regards to repairing a damaged republican brand.

Later, in the comments, he professes ignorance of WHY this upsets people, and he explicitly asks us to voice our views, so I did.

Most of my insistance is more about Timothy’s feigning the inability to understand some real basic facts. Such as, when a politician makes a public statement in regards to the Prop 8 case, in front of reporters and her Party, saying she will try to intervene and thinks the case should be defended in court, that somehow she isn’t campaigning on it. RIGHT. Also, Frum admits in his own words that his opinion changed based mostly on how it affectsw his party, not because the issue is one that is correct to be behind. Timothy seems to want to forgive AND FORGET, as if these people are now somehow less culpable for the serious damage they have done to our community.

If you are going to demand apologies from your readers for assigning views to you that you do not hold, I suggest you honor your own demands.

Your assertions that I like to be lied to, or that I don’t get pissed off when I’m lied to is factually inaccurate, and shows you treat your readers with less respect than you demand from them.

And you wonder why I bust your balls on a lot of your posts. You are dishonest in your articulations (frequently using strawmen arguments, infer people believe something they never stated they do, and then cry and block people from posting until they apologize for doing the same thing to you that you do to them…

And, you really are disengenious about the Whitman issue surrounding Prop 8. She voted for it. She mentioned, and her campaign spokespeople mentioned that she felt it should be defended in Court (while the case was still playing out-so the date of the actual Prop 8 ballot inititive has no bearing-

It’s funny how a comment made by a liberal would be considered a campaign talking point by you, but not when it’s done by a republican.

I respect HONEST ideas, I don’t respect your dishonest dialouge. You say you can’t see why people have these views on these people, it somehow leaves you scratching your head. Maybe you should apply your standards for republicans to Barney Frank. You asserted he supported a candidate, and never ever supplied the proof. Your assertion on that was based off of one sentence you recalled, but here you are provided multiple statements from both the individual and their campaign surrogates, but somehow you are still puzzled.

Anyone who believes that Obamas â€˜evolutionâ€™ on SSM was somehow â€˜differentâ€™ then what is happening now with these republicans is, as my ex would say, smoking a hot crack pipe.

Obama was already on record as supporting SSM and anyone who followed him knew this. His recent â€˜revelationâ€™ came as a shock to NO ONE! Not democrats, not republicans, not liberals nor conservatives. So he had nothing to loose in speaking his mind and everything to gain. People who were not gonna vote for him before this event had yet another reason to pick another guy, few, if any, people who planned to vote for him suddenly clutched their voting chad and left the room.

If there were concerns with his statement he left himself an escape hatch in place by not putting any political force behind it other then his â€˜opinionâ€™.

What it did do was rejuvenate the base that was becoming critical of his overall lack of real, long term, tangible support.

Thus he was able to give the GLBT community a proverbial H/J, and judging from the monetary and media spooge that afterwards covered the floor, it worked.

In this way Obama did what many have never done; wear his duplicity on his sleeve.

And if you think these Republicans have now somehow â€˜gainedâ€™ something, step out of your bubble for a moment and visit some right leaning blogs. The only thing their signatures have gained them is the title of RINO, and I have no doubt the letters stating they are persona non grata in â€˜Conservativeâ€™ circles are already in the mail.

Robert, thank you – I wasn’t even going to go there because there’s enough of my ego splattered on this page already, and there’s limits to mediocre behavior, and I’m already skirting the line. Heck, I dropped the F-bomb (sorry). I have to say – I have never, to my knowledge, been blocked, and I have raked Tim and others over the coals on more than one occasion. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, I’m just saying it hasn’t happened to me, for whatever that’s worth.

Sandhorse Your posting is sharing my brain. There are always going to be those in our community who are partisans first and who place gay issues a close or distant second. That’s true on both sides of the aisle.

I find myself infuriated by progressives unwilling to call out Democrats when they dodge for cover, throw us under the bus, take our money because they think we need them more than they need us, or make promises they have no intention of keeping.

Likewise, it’s aggravating when conservatives find extraordinary rationales to forgive – and, oh yes, forget – Republicans for past behaviors, and live in canine optimism that the “new and improved” represents the true face of the candidate or party, and who buy into every weasel-worded dodge made to the larger public while ignoring the embedded dog whistle comments, or private speeches made behind closed doors to donors that are inevitably more black and white.

Tim K, I’m calling you out on the latter. Like I said, it’s only a problem if you don’t know you’re doing it. If nothing else, you have forced me to dig deeper and do more homework regarding the three principals in question here (Whitman, Frum, and Mehlman).

I remain as adamant about – and am even better informed on – Whitman and Mehlman. I’m a lot looser on Frum because he actually got kicked out of a cushy job for changing his gay position 2 years ago – precisely the kind of political price I’m calling for as evidence of sincerity.

This debate is, in it’s own way, what I’m talking about… part of the process I think these candidates need to go through on their way to being “forgiven” – a full airing of past “sins”, and a candid assessment of their sincerity. It will serve those who really have stuck their necks out well, because they will be defended. And it will require more of those whose behavior was too egregious, or whose penance is half-hearted. OMG, I think my Catholic is showing.

Sandhorse – the GOP can’t continue on the path they’ve embarked on. If they finally purge every “RINO” from the party, the oroborous that the GOP has become will wink out of existence. At some point, the grown-ups are going to do the math, conclude that they’re poised to spend the next decade in the wilderness, and retake the party. After all, you can’t properly line your pocket if you don’t have any power.

Robert, I agree that I don’t think Timothy should have any trouble understanding where the critics are comming from but I think there’s been more than enough criticism and everyone’s viewpoint is more than clear. Its time to welcome these people to our side and be thankful they are there, regardless of why.

Andrew and Robert – if only there was a way to meet you guys in real life. I think we’d be fast friends. Please tell me you guys have blogs of your own?

Timothy, I’m glad you found the humor in my comment. I hope you see what I was getting at. Of all the gay blogs, I used to like this one the best. Now I just drop by every few days for the Daily Agenda and to see people call Timothy out in the comments. Rob’s stuff I get from the source.

I’ll still point people here when they cite the Amsterdam Study, as well as Jim’s excellent work on Kirk Murphy. And Timothy’s piece on why conservative christians just don’t get it when they say they love gays, but not their behavior. Otherwise, meh.

Even the most casual of glances would show that “Iâ€™m a bit confused. Is the criticism that he was stubborn and didnâ€™t change, or that he changed too quickly?” specifically addressed the comment above it: “Translation: â€ All those years that you told me this, in these exact words and I was a stubborn ass. But thanks to the embarrassing defeat that my party was handed I realize that if I hold any hope to even be photographed with those in power, I must change my tune and fast. â€

I know I’m behind in addressing these comments… I’m crazy busy at work today. But I will read them all and try to incorporate the views into my commentary (In a more general sense – I’m not going to attack anyone).

I think I am getting a sense of what is going on and why there is such fury over Whitman.

I’ll stay out of the comments from here (and try not to go there on the next commentary). I do hope that no one take that as an invitation to say horrible things about me personally… but I doubt my hopes will come true.

A straw man, or straw person for the politically correct inclined among us, is an intentional misrepresentation[1] of an opponent’s position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent’s arguments are more easily defeated than they are.

And the reason it’s a strawman is because BOTH of the views you give as options are NONE of the views anyone has given you as to their concerns about these individuals. Your position was an intentional misrepresentation of what every single poster had posted.

Not one individual gave you the argument that he was stubborn and didn’t change, and no one gave you the argument that he changed too quickly. But people did give you the argument that it was based on political expediency and was not a change of heart for reasons that actually matter.

So yes, it’s a strawman argument when you present your argument in terms that no one else has broached. You presented two arguments, neither of which was a concern for anyone commenting. You really need to start being honest. But I’ve given up on that possibility. And still, I see no apology to those you ascribe views to, which don’t mach their own rhetoric. You blocked me for doing the same thing to you, but you have no problems doing it to me and others. Maybe you should be forced to take a time out or apologize too, before you get to do anymore commentary. But then again, I’m sure the rules of engagement only apply to Us, and not you.

I’m glad they’ve changed. I forgive them for what they did or said earlier. I’m happy that they are seeing the light, and evolving– for whatever reasons.

But I’m still going to be wary of republicans, and it will be quite a long time before I could bring myself to vote for one. The last time i did was for milton Marks. The last national politician was John anderson.

There is more required than change for me. What i want to see is AMENDS. Mehlman is making his amends. He’s got a ways to go. Whitman– not so much.

We’re not annoyed that these folks are now on our side. We’re just not willing to give them a pass on the damage they’ve done – like a person who’s been bitten by a dog, we don’t hate all dogs – we’re just wary. I am willing to give anyone a tentative amount of trust, and depending on that person’s actions, I will adjust my level of trust up or down. Ken Mehlman is the easiest example: I do not trust him one ounce, but he’s doing the right things now, and for that my trust of him increases.

I also gauge the amount of credit I give a person for taking a stand on our side based on the risk that person is taking in doing so. So when Cindy McCain did her “NO H8” photo in 2010, I gave her a very very small amount of credit. “Gee that would’ve been nice in mid 2008, when Prop 102 was on Arizona’s ballot.” By the time 2010 cam around, it was cold comfort.

And the same goes for Dick Cheney, whose support came after he was done facing election – it’s welcome and appreciated, but it’s still cold comfort. “You were in a position to take a leadership role on this issue, but now that it’s not politically risky, I can’t call it ‘brave.'”

There’s something else that’s been bugging me for a few hours and I’ve finally put my finger on it. Meg Whitman made a statement that intelligent people can honestly say they understood to mean that she was campaigning on defending Prop 8 in court. Robert, Andrew, and myself at the very least, take that quotation to mean that.

Then, Timothy, you come at us with this whole “you were willing to be deceived by people who were lying to you so that Jerry Brown would win.” That’s pretty condescending, dude. Can’t you see where an honest person could take Whitman’s statement as a policy position that she would defend Prop 8? Can’t you see that there are valid interpretations of that statement that are different than your own?

Is it not possible that Robert, Andrew, myself, and others came to that conclusion on our own and weren’t just willing pawns? I think that’s just outright condescending and rude, and I’ve always had the impression that btb’s readership deserved better than to be spoken to that way.

And as for getting all pissy with your readers, remember – you solicited this feedback. If you don’t like that your readership is giving you their honest opinions, then don’t solicit their damned feedback!

I don’t think this about face change will be too beneficial to the GOP. If the GOP drops the culture wars or even accepts marriage equality they will lose much of their support who still want to fight the culture wars.

Having said that I tend not to believe the GOP when they say that they are not interested in the culture wars anymore. In many states where the GOP ran on what they called taxes and economics and then won they quickly got into culture war issues. Many red states are now trying to ban abortion just as an example. Then you have red states that decided that now is the best time, while the GOP is in power, to change election laws to try and favor them.

So I guess in summary I think that they are only doing this to make people think like they have changed and that the GOP is more inclusive. I think their actions betray their words on this case.

Instead of regular GOP candidates they will go for the even more extreme tea party candidates, priya. Yes, I know they are the same thing, but they will pretend to be outraged and vote for tea partiers.

Meg Whitman stated during her campaign that she would defend Prop 8 in court. Given that at the time, there was a real question as to whether the case would even go forward with Schwarzenegger refusing to defend it and Brown saying he wouldn’t either, Whitman’s comments were completely relevant and notable. To say that she didn’t “campaign” on this issue is a distinction utterly without meaning. She said it during her campaign. That’s campaigning. We weren’t “lied to” by gay groups.
That said, she’s changed her mind, as have Frum and many others. This can only be a net good. Let’s take it, and hope that in a few years, politically relevant Conservatives will feel brave enough to follow suit. It’s not like we have to vote for them now, anyway.

When I was growing up, my Mom had this habit of bringing out the camera after my Dad and brother and I had been working on some project involving hard physical labor for several hours. she would snap a couple of pictures and then say: “Hey, why don’t you take the camera for a second, and take a picture of me holding the pickaxe?” And it would get pasted into the photo album next to the pictures of us working as evidence that she had worked on the project.

Sure, it’s great that some conservative voices are belatedly jumping the sinking anti-SSM marriage ship and swimming over to our lifeboat. Better here with us than over there. But I’m not willing to give them applause for it or credit for any sort of bravery or virtue. It’s kind of summed up in this exchange from one of my favorite TV shows of all time:

SPIKE: I’m not sampling, I’ll have you know. I mean, look at all these lovely blood-covered people. I could, but not a taste for Spike, not a lick. Knew you wouldn’t like it.

There are many valid questions posed here (on multiple “sides” of several issues), but I could not find the answers anywhere, and so researched the evolution of the Supreme Court brief, and each of its 131 signers.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.